W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: HTML produced by non-experts

From: Doug McGee <guitarmac@email.msn.com>
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 21:58:04 -0700
Message-ID: <003e01bd8150$e587f020$0a9bfad0@guitarmac.earthlink.net>
To: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>The discussion has been prompted because 'someone's secretaries need to
>produce HTML, but don't know how to write HTML'.
>The simple answer is:
>Provide them with proper training, so they do know how to produce HTML.
>Most people can learn to produce basic HTML, and to understand why that
>is preferable for so many cases, in a few days.

I agree one hundred percent, it's better to take the time to learn how to do
it right.  I also started out with Composer and as I learned more about HTML
I found myself reworking the code and to date I have written the same pages
five or six times.

The tool I use now is the Arachnophilia HTML editor and while it is not
WYSIWYG it is easy to learn and use and is extremely flexible and user
configurable.  It allows you to preview your work on up to six different
browsers and will even convert RTF files into HTML.

It includes a minimal tutorial on HTML and although it was apparently
written pre- HTML 3.0 it was very thoughtfully written to allow for
inclusion of new tags and languages. (I use it for CSS as well as HTML

It can be downloaded free from: http://www.arachnoid.com/arachnophilia/

That is the bottom line
>cost - you cannot make strawberry jam from cow's manure, you have to buy
>Charles McCathieNevile

Yeah, but why buy strawberries and make jam when you can just buy the jam
ready made.

Of course it tastes better if you grew the strawberries yourself and made
the jam, but this analogy is getting beaten pretty thin so...
Received on Sunday, 17 May 1998 01:10:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:01 UTC